Promotion of photovoltaic systems Easter package

For commercial purposes. If you have a warehouse, then you need relatively little electricity yourself, but you have a huge roof area. And the difference between commercial electricity prices and feed-in tariffs is anyway smaller, so self-consumption is less worthwhile than for private households. Nobody installs photovoltaics on the roof out of hobby either; it has to pay off. And of course, ground-mounted photovoltaics. We can already prepare for the fact that significantly more fields will be built over in the future.

So, first of all: I think it’s crap and a very weak signal from Habeck.

But I can still explain it to myself: The solar installers have been telling the fairy tale of too low feed-in tariffs and maximizing self-consumption for years. That seems to be enough for the industry to boom and was already well utilized before supply shortages and war. There are even more and more people who voluntarily forego the money from the feed-in tariff...

Well, in any case, a photovoltaic system can pay for itself through self-consumption alone. Even faster with a heat pump and an electric car. And because of that, this private sector doesn’t need much support. It’s already running. (And when something is running, subsidies have to go away again, that’s how it is.)

What doesn’t work anymore with the low feed-in tariff are full feed-in systems on outbuildings, warehouses, sheds, apartment buildings, etc. THEY must be subsidized. They are usually large and help significantly with the energy transition.

The only catch is unfortunately that the surplus feed-in providers are increasingly being pushed towards small "self-consumption optimized" systems. And that is exactly the wrong thing. Both for the wallet and for the environment. Therefore, I am in favor of quickly improving this and paying at least 8-9 cents. And with that, money is still being given away, since the electricity is usually worth more!

And of course ground-mounted photovoltaic systems. We can already expect that significantly more fields will be built over in the future.

If we don't need the areas for wheat ;-)

Photovoltaics and agriculture go quite well together. There are different solutions for different plants. Besides roofing, I also find photovoltaic fences with transparent modules very exciting. These are installed in a north-south direction and have the highest output in the morning and evening. So then, when the usual south-facing systems produce the least. The electricity can therefore be sold particularly well, so that these systems can even be more economical than the classic ground-mounted system. Between two fences, exactly one combine harvester width is left free, resulting in relatively low land loss and, depending on the region, also extreme weather protection for the plants.

Not to mention: If we stopped with the whole super inefficient (factor of one hundred less yield per m² than photovoltaics) "energy crops" nonsense, and simply used the areas for that purpose for photovoltaics (2% of the national territory), we would already be done with the solar energy transition.

I am also familiar with the theoretical concept of combined use. I have just never seen a facility with my own eyes that would be suitable for more than one sheep pasture. ;)

We can already expect that significantly more fields will be built over in the future.

This will become ugly, just like the wind turbines in landscape and nature conservation areas. I am curious about what will develop behind our house, currently (for 15 years) still open field with deer, in the medium term. I don’t even know whether more money can be made in the medium term with building land, photovoltaic systems, or wind turbines.